By Patrick Appel
Josh Patashnik thinks Obama hasn't moved:

Insofar as there's a growing similarity between the Obama–Maliki position and Bush's, it's that Bush is talking less like this and more about a timetable or a "general time horizon" or whatever. Yet Mead doesn't mention that at all, insinuating that it's Obama who's moved toward Bush, rather than the other way around. And anyway, is it really a consensus if the current Republican nominee for president doesn't subscribe to it? It's obvious that there are some areas of agreement, but let's not get carried away here. There's still a starker, more substantive contrast between the two parties on foreign policy than there's been in any presidential election in decades.

Mark Levin thinks McCain hasn't moved:

In my opinioon, McCain has not come closer to Obama's position.  McCain's position, like Bush's, has always been a conditional one, based on circumstances/conditions not ideology.  If leaving Iraq, in whole or part, in 16 months can be done without harming our national security (broadly defined), then neither McCain nor Bush would hold out for more time.  Why would they?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.